E-mail to FOP

[Vince49]

Thanks!

Great letter Mike and thank you for sending it and sharing it with us. The rep Gods say I love you too much so unable to add to your medal rack at this time!

 

[4sarge]

From the FOP president Chuck Canterbury
fopchuck@aol.com

Copied From the FOP Journal February 2013

As to our current stand on issues that involve violence in schools our platform is as follows;

1) The mental health records of persons who should be barred from purchasing firearms must be included in the back ground check System. The "Gun control act of 1968 bars from them the ownership of firearms, but there has never been a system in place other than an honor system at the point of sale.

2) The FOP has a standing resolution, passed at the 1993 national convention, to support the assault weapons ban as passed in 1994. This vote was recorded as a ballot vote and passed with an overwhelming margin. It is my duty as president to uphold the resolution until directed by the delegates to do otherwise. We will take a look at any proposals, but it is not our goal to support a ban more inclusive than the 1994 law.

3 ) The FOP has supported background checks on firearms purchases and we will continue to do so. In the 1990's a compromise was offered to close the gun show loopholes and it was not accepted. We will again advocate for an instant check system, which is already in place in a number of states.

4) We have already written a letter to Vice President Joe Bidden requesting that the ATF is provided with the leadership resources and manpower necessary to enforce the laws already on the books. New laws cannot be enforced if there are not sufficient resources to enforce those we already have.

I am thinking he needs to get a ton of emails.

They are looking for $$'s, Political Favors and their individual 15 Minutes of Fleeting Fame

 

[j706]

They are looking for $$'s, Political Favors and their individual 15 Minutes of Fleeting Fame

I am thinking we need to start a Facebook page against the FOP's stance on gun control. I am not to well versed in such things but I will not remain quiet. Anyone care to walk me through it?

 

[KG1]

Well thanks! And I do mean it. I will having nothing to do with anything or anyone that is anti gun. Anti gunners have some sort of perverted mentality that I cannot understand.

Kudos to you sir and I can tell you meant it just by reading some of your other posts on the subject of recent events related to the RTKBA.

I am glad to be able to put aside past differences with not only you but also with Uncle Mike and I can respect your willingness to buck the FOP.

I'm proud to be able to say that we stand on the same side of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Valvestate]

Hmm i was kicking the idea around about donating. Guess not.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I've been a member of the local Indianapolis FOP since I came on IPD. I've yet to see any benefit from the NATIONAL organization, but the LOCAL lodge has been great. I won't cut off my nose to spite my face and defund the local lodge because of the national's position.

Frankly, I there should be a nationwide demand for a re-vote on that 2 decade old policy and see what the current members think. Its a very different time today than it was in the early Clinton era years.

 

[UncleMike]

I've been a member of the local Indianapolis FOP since I came on IPD. I've yet to see any benefit from the NATIONAL organization, but the LOCAL lodge has been great. I won't cut off my nose to spite my face and defund the local lodge because of the national's position.

Frankly, I there should be a nationwide demand for a re-vote on that 2 decade old policy and see what the current members think. Its a very different time today than it was in the early Clinton era years.

Yup..
I'll still donate to my local Lodge since they have activities that benefit the local community and none of them back any type of AWB or mag restrictions.
I mentioned a poll of the Members concerning an AWB to the National Lodge President but I was politely told that nothing will be done until the National Conference and that isn't until 8/11-15/2013.

 

[j706]

The only benefit at the local level for the FOP and my agency is the legal defense fund. It is nice to have and reasonable priced. We do not have any collective bargaining where I work. For the most part we don't really need it either. We are treated well with only the best equipment as well as one of the highest paid agency's in the county. I probably won't vote in favor of unionizing. As a general rule I despise unions. They spent most of their time defending worthless dead beats IMO. And on top of it all they send money to the libs and I hate that!!

I understand that the FOP was a big factor in the LESA that I support. But like unclemike said, they need to poll their membership. I am not buying into the claim that the general membership supports this BS. No way. FWIW I will not be a member of the FOP until such a time as they change their position on these issues. Hey I am just one guy and it won't make much difference. But it is what it is. Guess I need to be looking for a law firm to have on retainer.

 

[IndyDave1776]

From the FOP president Chuck Canterbury
fopchuck@aol.com

Copied From the FOP Journal February 2013

As to our current stand on issues that involve violence in schools our platform is as follows;

1) The mental health records of persons who should be barred from purchasing firearms must be included in the back ground check System. The "Gun control act of 1968 bars from them the ownership of firearms, but there has never been a system in place other than an honor system at the point of sale.

2) The FOP has a standing resolution, passed at the 1993 national convention, to support the assault weapons ban as passed in 1994. This vote was recorded as a ballot vote and passed with an overwhelming margin. It is my duty as president to uphold the resolution until directed by the delegates to do otherwise. We will take a look at any proposals, but it is not our goal to support a ban more inclusive than the 1994 law.

3 ) The FOP has supported background checks on firearms purchases and we will continue to do so. In the 1990's a compromise was offered to close the gun show loopholes and it was not accepted. We will again advocate for an instant check system, which is already in place in a number of states.

4) We have already written a letter to Vice President Joe Bidden requesting that the ATF is provided with the leadership resources and manpower necessary to enforce the laws already on the books. New laws cannot be enforced if there are not sufficient resources to enforce those we already have.

I am thinking he needs to get a ton of emails.

I agree, but don't expect a response worth reading.

 

[AZ D]

Well.......
I got my Feb. copy of The FOP Journal today and after reading the FOP Presidents message I decided to let him know exactly how I feel about the "official" stance of the FOP concerning "Assault weapons"
Here's my e-mail to him.

I've been an FOP member since 1974 so I'm not speaking up as a novice in this matter.
You people have made the FOP the laughing stock of the American firearms community and have further added to the "US vs THEM" mentality in America.
Your support of the unconstitutional proposals to ban a certain type of weapon based entirely on it's looks is just as stupid as blaming all crime on a given group of people because you don't like their looks.
If you think for one minute that the Public will stand idly by and have their rights trampled while the Law Enforcement Community gets a pass on those Draconian laws you are as delusional as those numbskulls in Washington.
Already Firearms suppliers are denying sales to Departments in the States stupid enough to jump on the purely emotional bandwagon resulting from the recent tragedies.
The 1993 resolution that you refer to is Ancient History.
It was voted on 19 years ago when the political atmosphere wasn't as volatile as it is today.
I strongly suggest that you take a poll of the current FOP Membership before you go off half cocked and support something that is NOT in the best interest of the FOP members who elected you.

The 1993 resolution that I mention was the FOP's support of the Clinton AWB which I protested back then as well.
I'm fed up with people purporting to represent me in these issues when they have never asked my opinion!!!

These are trying times for us gun owners, and it's too bad that they have taken this stance! No one wants to write a letter like this, but there comes a time, when enough is enough! Kudos Sir!

 

[j706]

I agree, but don't expect a response worth reading.

I have not heard from him since I emailed him. In all honesty I have doubts that he himself supports any more laws. He is from sc. But like unclemike wrote, they need to poll the members on the issue. Not go off a 19 year old survey. Many things change in 19 years.

 

[Tandor]

+1 UM (Uncle Mike)

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well.......
I got my Feb. copy of The FOP Journal today and after reading the FOP Presidents message I decided to let him know exactly how I feel about the "official" stance of the FOP concerning "Assault weapons"
Here's my e-mail to him.

I've been an FOP member since 1974 so I'm not speaking up as a novice in this matter.
You people have made the FOP the laughing stock of the American firearms community and have further added to the "US vs THEM" mentality in America.
Your support of the unconstitutional proposals to ban a certain type of weapon based entirely on it's looks is just as stupid as blaming all crime on a given group of people because you don't like their looks.
If you think for one minute that the Public will stand idly by and have their rights trampled while the Law Enforcement Community gets a pass on those Draconian laws you are as delusional as those numbskulls in Washington.
Already Firearms suppliers are denying sales to Departments in the States stupid enough to jump on the purely emotional bandwagon resulting from the recent tragedies.
The 1993 resolution that you refer to is Ancient History.
It was voted on 19 years ago when the political atmosphere wasn't as volatile as it is today.
I strongly suggest that you take a poll of the current FOP Membership before you go off half cocked and support something that is NOT in the best interest of the FOP members who elected you.

The 1993 resolution that I mention was the FOP's support of the Clinton AWB which I protested back then as well.
I'm fed up with people purporting to represent me in these issues when they have never asked my opinion!!!

I'm a little late to this thread, but way-to-go UncleMike!

 

[IndyDave1776]

I have not heard from him since I emailed him. In all honesty I have doubts that he himself supports any more laws. He is from sc. But like unclemike wrote, they need to poll the members on the issue. Not go off a 19 year old survey. Many things change in 19 years.

His answer, at the top with my original message below:

Thanks for your very uniformed opinion.

On Feb 20, 2013, at 7:54 PM, [IndyDave1776] wrote:

It has been brought to my attention that you are responsible for the following being posted in the February FOP journal:

Copied From the FOP Journal February 2013

As to our current stand on issues that involve violence in schools our platform is as follows;

1) The mental health records of persons who should be barred from purchasing firearms must be included in the back ground check System. The "Gun control act of 1968 bars from them the ownership of firearms, but there has never been a system in place other than an honor system at the point of sale.

2) The FOP has a standing resolution, passed at the 1993 national convention, to support the assault weapons ban as passed in 1994. This vote was recorded as a ballot vote and passed with an overwhelming margin. It is my duty as president to uphold the resolution until directed by the delegates to do otherwise. We will take a look at any proposals, but it is not our goal to support a ban more inclusive than the 1994 law.

3 ) The FOP has supported background checks on firearms purchases and we will continue to do so. In the 1990's a compromise was offered to close the gun show loopholes and it was not accepted. We will again advocate for an instant check system, which is already in place in a number of states.

4) We have already written a letter to Vice President Joe Bidden requesting that the ATF is provided with the leadership resources and manpower necessary to enforce the laws already on the books. New laws cannot be enforced if there are not sufficient resources to enforce those we already have.

Assuming that I have been correctly informed, you, sir, are an enemy of the Constitution and an enemy of the American people.

[IndyDave1776]

 

[Indy317]

2) The FOP has a standing resolution, passed at the 1993 national convention, to support the assault weapons ban as passed in 1994. This vote was recorded as a ballot vote and passed with an overwhelming margin. It is my duty as president to uphold the resolution until directed by the delegates to do otherwise. We will take a look at any proposals, but it is not our goal to support a ban more inclusive than the 1994 law.

Well, he left himself some outs if you ask me:
#1: He conditioned the stance based on a resolution, and made sure to point out it easily could be changed based upon direction of the delegates.

#2: The 1994 is what they supported and still support. While this limits capacity of magazines, it did nothing really in terms of "assault rifles." I purchased one AK and two ARs during the ban.

After reading some of Facebook pages, sounds like they might be stepping back. I think the delegates need to meet again, and a vote of the membership needs to be taken again.

 

[UncleMike]

Well, he left himself some outs if you ask me:
#1: He conditioned the stance based on a resolution, and made sure to point out it easily could be changed based upon direction of the delegates.

#2: The 1994 is what they supported and still support. While this limits capacity of magazines, it did nothing really in terms of "assault rifles." I purchased one AK and two ARs during the ban.

After reading some of Facebook pages, sounds like they might be stepping back. I think the delegates need to meet again, and a vote of the membership needs to be taken again.

That won't be until August 11-15, 2013.
A great deal of damage to our Second Amendment Rights can be done in that six month period by the Anti's who have latched onto the FOP's "apparent" approval of gun control.
We're in a war with the Liberal/Socialists who will use ANY trick, or deception, to further their goal of destroying this Republic.
I sincerely hope that it doesn't escalate to a shooting war but in light of the lunatic statements and actions of the Left I fear that it may only be a matter of time before an incident occurs that is so egregious that the American gun owners feel that they must use their arms to protect their Rights.
God help us if it comes to that.

 

[j706]

Well, he left himself some outs if you ask me:
#1: He conditioned the stance based on a resolution, and made sure to point out it easily could be changed based upon direction of the delegates.

#2: The 1994 is what they supported and still support. While this limits capacity of magazines, it did nothing really in terms of "assault rifles." I purchased one AK and two ARs during the ban.

After reading some of Facebook pages, sounds like they might be stepping back. I think the delegates need to meet again, and a vote of the membership needs to be taken again.

You know I agree on all counts. I sure hope they do change their position. I kind of like having that legal defense fund.

 

[j706]

That won't be until August 11-15, 2013.
A great deal of damage to our Second Amendment Rights can be done in that six month period by the Anti's who have latched onto the FOP's "apparent" approval of gun control.
We're in a war with the Liberal/Socialists who will use ANY trick, or deception, to further their goal of destroying this Republic.
I sincerely hope that it doesn't escalate to a shooting war but in light of the lunatic statements and actions of the Left I fear that it may only be a matter of time before an incident occurs that is so egregious that the American gun owners feel that they must use their arms to protect their Rights.
God help us if it comes to that.

Oh man I sure hope we never see the last part. Often times though I think we are closer than we realize. I sure hope I am wrong but there are a lot of angry people out there right now. Everyone got a tax increase and we have not even seen what the obama care will end up costing everyone. It sucks IMO.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

His answer, at the top with my original message below:

Thanks for your very uniformed opinion

.

WTH is a uniformed opinion? Since I'm a detective, would I have a suited opinion?

Seriously, now I wonder if his auto-correct changed it, and was it supposed to informed or uninformed?

 

[j706]

Update-Response from the FOP

[FONT=&quot]We are not supporting the ban but you do what you think you have to do. We are only supporting expanded background checks and including metal health data in these checks and funding for law enforcement. The ban as proposed is not in line with our beliefs but we do have the standing resolution to support the 94 ban but that has not been offered and as soon as we can take a legal vote at the conference i am of the believe that the delegates will agree with that stance. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Chuck Canterbury

[/FONT]